Murphy v. Countiss

Superior Court of Delaware

Murphy v. Countiss

1 Del. 143

Superior Court of Delaware·Decided July 5, 1833·Published

Opinion

The Court

said the older authorities sustained the position of the plff’s, attorney. In the time of Lord Kenyon and since, however, *144 the decisions have been that a false imprisonment does not necessarily include a battery.. But it makes no difference here; the false imprisonment, if proved, will entitle the plff. to recover; and not merely for the time the constable was bringing him to jail, but for the whole period of his imprisonment.

Gilpin, for plaintiff. Latimer, for defendant.

The plaintiff had a verdict.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Court

said the older authorities sustained the position of the plff’s, attorney. In the time of Lord Kenyon and since, however, *144 the decisions have been that a false imprisonment does not necessarily include a battery.. But it makes no difference here; the false imprisonment, if proved, will entitle the plff. to recover; and not merely for the time the constable was bringing him to jail, but for the whole period of his imprisonment.

Gilpin, for plaintiff. Latimer, for defendant.

The plaintiff had a verdict.

Murphy v. Countiss, 1 Del. 143 (Del. Ct. App. 1833).

Pincite

1 Del. 143 (Murphy v. Countiss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.